|
||
Memo to the Mainstream Media: Stop Worshiping at the Failed Cult of Free Trade
Reporters often heap scorn upon the rigid views of social conservatives and evangelical Christians, but very few of them acknowledge their own overwhelming religious bias: too many reporters worship unflinchingly at the discredited cult of "free trade," even in the absence of facts to support their beliefs.
They even have a name for the heretics and unbelievers: "protectionists."
There's a piece on the Bloomberg wire today that follows this script exactly. It's another one of those "if the voters were only smart enough to realize the benefits of trade they would not support these pandering candidates" hatchet jobs which underestimate the views of real people and overemphasize an economic philosophy that doesn't really apply to our 21st century economy.
The title of the piece, "Democrats Find Protectionism a Hard Sell in Iowa, New Hampshire" is the first flaw.
Any candidate who casts a critical eye on our trade agreements and trade policy and calls for desperately needed change is not a protectionist. They are visionary and courageous. Congress and the Administration fix laws all the time that are not working. So why not examine NAFTA or our trade laws as they relate to China? It's time that the media elites wake up and discover that accountability in trade policy is a good thing, and blind faith in a 19th century philosophy is naïve and dangerous. On the flip side, a candidate who looks at our entire trade picture, including a $763 billion trade deficit, 3.3 million manufacturing job losses, a spate of toxic imports from China, and widespread cheating in the form of subsidies and counterfeiting by our trade partners with virtually no response from Washington, and thinks it is great, is not a "free trade" candidate. He or she is deluded.
But putting labels on candidates like "protectionist" or "free trade" saves a lot of digging to really get at the facts.
The Bloomberg reporters deserve credit for raising this important issue. But their own claim that Iowa and New Hampshire "benefit from free-trade policies that many residents nonetheless blame for lost jobs" is found nowhere in reality. The reporters cite statistics on exports--not bothering to consider imports--and the states' unemployment rate to bolster their case, backed up by a couple of economics professors and a D.C.-based free-trade pundit.
In reality, Iowa has lost more than 22,000 manufacturing jobs since 2000, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. According to the Economic Policy Institute, the Hawkeye state has shed 17,700 jobs because of our trade deficit with China alone. In New Hampshire, 27,400 manufacturing jobs have disappeared since 2000. Moreover, the Granite State has lost a greater share of its employment to imbalanced trade with China--2.1 percent or 13,000 jobs--than any other state in the nation.
Looking at the states' unemployment rates alone is not a good indicator of the benefits of trade, but the authors assume otherwise. Manufacturing jobs come with better pay and benefits than the service sector jobs that replace them. In addition, many younger people are deferring entrance into the job market and older workers are dropping out completely, which skews the unemployment statistic. So it is not a particularly useful indicator of the benefits of trade.
While the reporting duo correctly cites the closing of Maytag in Newton, Iowa, they underestimated the jobs loss--reporting 1,000--when the actual number ranges from 1,800 to 2,600--depending on how many years you want to track back.
The story also underemphasizes the role that manufacturing plays in both states. In Iowa and New Hampshire, manufacturing is still the largest economic sector and very relevant to future employment opportunities in both states.
Even the Bloomberg/LA Times poll from September 2007 is inaccurately characterized in the article, which claims that voters are choosing between a "free-trade" or "anti-free trade" candidate, when the question was:
"Do you prefer a presidential nominee who believes that trade agreements like the North American trade agreement with Mexico and Canada will benefit the U.S. economy, or do you prefer a presidential nominee who believes that trade agreements like the North American trade agreement with Mexico and Canada will hurt the U.S. economy?"
It's hard to understand how a voter would interpret this question; it's a bad example of poll-ese designed to skew the result. If the question is asked more directly, the results are conclusively skeptical of our current trade policy among Republicans and Democrats. Voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina responded overwhelmingly to a message of reform and accountability in our trade policies in nearly every other research survey. You can examine one example here.
As someone who has talked with voters in Iowa and New Hampshire firsthand, I can tell you that the economy, jobs, and globalization are top-of-mind issues for many of them--factory workers, town mayors, farmers, and small businessmen. None of them are afraid of trade, and they are all convinced that if they have a fair opportunity to compete in the global marketplace, they will do well. But the current rules are so stacked against them that it is impossible to guarantee fair competition--and the voters know that. What voters want, and need, is a president who will do something about it.
Perhaps that is why Iowa voters spent about half an hour during the National Public Radio Democratic debate this month quizzing candidates about their views on China and trade. It's also why Republicans and Democrats flocked to our town hall meetings in Iowa and New Hampshire this fall to discuss trade, manufacturing, and the election.
Between now and New Hampshire, there will be more attempts to mischaracterize trade and politics. A careful review of the facts will help to keep things in perspective. All of the leading Democratic candidates, including Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama, are calling for changes in our trade policies. There are certainly differences between the candidates, but trade policy has spurred a healthy competition of ideas among the three. While Mike Huckabee's appeal to Iowa Republicans on social issues is well documented, his criticisms of outsourcing also contribute to his support. These leaders of the pack pay careful attention to the facts on the ground. The mainstream media should start doing the same.
Follow Scott Paul on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ScottPaulAAM
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Great article, Mr. Paul.
The candidate who wants to win needs to pick up the slogan and bumper sticker:
"It's Not the Economy, Stupid. IT'S YOUR JOB."
Our white collar middle class jobs are being sold out to insourced cheap labor in the fields of technology, finance, nursing and medicine while the corporatists, politicians and media gatekeepers keep their eye on the green. Both parties are in collusion with this consolidation of money and power as global resources diminish and fail to sustain growing global populations. "Protectionist" means priorities. Wages continue to plummet as jobs here continue to disappear.
As our white collar workers continue to be replaced by immigrants when there are no labor shorgtages but in fact job shortages, it is imperative for this country to overhaul its immigration system to balance fairness and restore competitiveness at the local levels once again.
Obviously, one crying need is for accountability, not only for alleged protectionism, but for violations of labor/human rights, and of strictly enforced progressive international environmental standards. The adjudication of these issues should if anything ALWAYS take priority over questions of protectionism in international adjudication, but some kind of "balance" is needed.
In my view, though I think Obama the best of those candidates with a chance of winning, Kucinich by far has addressed these issues most forthrightly on the substance, now as in 04 (when I voted for him).
Free trade, indeed. There's nothing free about it! It's costing us a BUNDLE and it's only going to get worse if we don't elect someone that will go toe to toe with the corporatists and multi-nationals. The Friedmanites only want to eliminate restrictions on markets when it those restrictios don't serve their agenda of greed. They are certainly not averse to government being involved in the economy when it helps their bottom line. Naomi Klein has it just right in the "Shock Doctrine", I suggest everyone read it so they will know what We the People are up against.
When did protecting become the dirty word
Protectionist?
Protect worker rights!
correction to my last post: 1913, not 1933 (invent of the Fed)
Free Trade can not exist in our currenty system, and hasn't. That is the fundamental error of interpretation when "free trade" is critized (and rightfully so). We have had managed corporatism since 1933, at the invent of the Federal Reserve Bank...a debt based monetary system, fiat, inherently corrupt and not answerable to anyone within the construct of our constitution. The paper isn't based upon ANYTHING, but only subject to the whims of the WTO, CFR, and the plutocratic elites, who get a first take at our money. This is further enabled by a lobby-whoring Congress who continue to try and get us to swallow a red or blue pill, meanwhile adding to the morally corrupt funding of their warfare/welfare state mentality towards a global government (witnessed recently in the $70Billion authorized to Bush with a welfare pkg tacked on).
Austrian economics is the closest model to our constitutional intention. Trade, travel, diplomacy...
We have been duped. Our dollar is tanked, the deficit is egregious, and the globalist candidates are spewing their guns and butter as a ruse to their hidden agenda: The New World Order. Only 3 candidates, gravel, kucinich, and paul are NOT members of the CFR. It is no wonder that they are being marginalized. Paul is overcoming it.
Peter Schiff, Larry Kudlow, Steve Forbes, Porter Stansberry....all support Paul's approach in having a competing currency w/o a full abolishment of the Federal Reserve as a means of transition to a sounder economy.
Let the rEVOLution take hold.
“Allow me to control the issue and the nation’s money and I care not who makes its laws!” — Amshell Rothschild
“It is well enough that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system for, if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.” — Henry Ford
Well guess what? Ron Paul supporters understand. And those in their Ivory Towers can keep digging their moats if they think it will make them safer. We can swim.
blue dog democrat for ron paul
Good article. Its just one more reason (out of many) why we, as Americans, should really check out FOR OURSELVES, as much as we can ALL CANDIDATES!
We have to do it soon, too, before it's too late, with the first caucuses? getting started just after the first of the year. (And how did that happen, and is it really legal? If so, that is one of the first things that needs to be changed. Maybe it would be better to have the top two candidate of each party, and two independents, a total of six, be able to run for prez...?)
Everyone knows someone whose job has been affected by outsourcing, plant consolidation, or company buyout/closing. (See Mitt Romney's record on this, I saw an article somewhere that described him as a "vampire" due to his habit of buying companies, and basically stripping them of assets & forcing them into bankruptcy within a short time, while making millions for himself. I believe he even holds up his business records as proof of what a great prez he would be. But for who?)
Check this link about the effects of NAFTA. Taken from a Congressional "findings" section of a new bill (in 1998)"NAFTA Accountability Act"-HR-978. This information from March 29, 1998, and yet they (our big business government) still went ahead with many other such agreements. The article is at the bottom of the page. Interestingly, on the same page are some comments about RON PAUL.
http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu78.htm#KillingWithoutCompulsion
This is a quote by Obama from the linked article about China in the Dem debate:
"I actually believe that China will modify its behavior if we actually are tough in our negotiations,"
I like Obama, that is until he says stupid things like this. I'm not sure who he's trying to kid here.
The fact is the U.S. has NO leverage for negotiation with China, they currently OWN us with over $1 trillion US dollars in their coffers. What are we gonna do, BURY them in more of our currency?
However, we could stop subsidizing them
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/36/your-taxes-subsidize-china/em.
Global Capitalists, the IMF, The World Bank, WTO are behind the short-term profits that have sold America cheap! Gov't has been in collusion all along. The people who lose are economic collateral damage in the war for "emerging markets" and the final stages of the RAPE of the Planet! SEE: The Shock Doctrine-Naomi Klein and her article in The Nation-Dec 17, Page 10.
Yeah, you're right people are concerned about "free trade" agreements. They are also concerned about the economy. Either way, no politician is going to admit that "free trade" is bad, nor that our economy is doing anything other than "great!"
It would be great if we still had our manufacturing base. But this erosion started way before Nafta. In the 1970s, the Japanese almost single-handedly finished off our steel industry, and then in the 1980s, they almost finished off our car industry? Why? Because they made good stuff and we made junk. Our mantra was built-in obsolescence, buy a new car every two years, same for washers etc. Maytag made great stuff at one time, but started making junk and people stopped buying. It's that simple. Let's stop whining and regain our work ethic, our commitment to quality and real customer service, and we'll get our manufacturing back.
Stop the flow of immigration which takes our outnumbered white collar jobs.
So...what's left? The equally discredited cult of socialism?
All those so-called "free trade" agreements aren't about free trade at all, and America has gotten the short end of every one of them.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
